Twin Sisters in Turmoil: Sudan and South Sudan at the Brink
Once bound by history, geography, and shared struggles, Sudan and South Sudan now stand together at the edge of a deepening abyss. What began as manageable political disagreements—over security arrangements, military integration, and the timing of reforms—have escalated into devastating national crises with consequences measured not only in lost billions and trillions of dollars, but in shattered institutions, displaced populations, and stolen futures. As pride eclipsed compromise and indecision replaced leadership, both nations slipped toward instability, revealing how small political failures, when left unresolved, can unravel entire states.
The disagreement over the timing of integrating the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) into the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in Khartoum produced far-reaching consequences which, if quantified in monetary terms, could amount to trillions of United States dollars. What initially appeared to be a minor political dispute left the country hanging by a thin thread. Sudanese leaders in Khartoum exchanged bitter words at that time when things were still not very bad, each proudly beating his chest and refusing to compromise, underestimating the gravity of the path they were taking.
Similarly, leaders in South Sudan have chosen to mirror the unfolding crisis in Sudan by effectively nullifying the 2018 Revitalized Agreement, particularly the security arrangements that were supposed to be completed within a three-year period beginning in September 2018. The processes and subsequent actions that led to the dismantling of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) have already cost the country hundreds of billions of United States dollars.
These financial losses are expected to rise even further unless wiser, more responsible, and decisive actions are taken. Beyond monetary losses, the toll on human capital has been devastating and remains largely underreported. The outcomes unfolding today are markedly different from what the leaders of both countries initially envisioned. Indecision, delayed reforms, and political brinkmanship have produced consequences that may soon leave many saying, “I wish I had known, and acted differently.”
Sudan now risks fragmenting into two de facto states, while South Sudan appears to be either following a similar trajectory or drifting toward a different but equally uncertain path. If current trends persist, the two countries may become twin sister nations stranded on the margins of the region—politically fragile, economically drained, and perpetually unstable—while neighboring states continue to exploit their prolonged turmoil. The pressing question remains: what will these leaders do now, before it is too late?
Kind regards.
Adok K. Dhol
Resident Economist
January 20, 2026
Adok Kuony Dhol
Share
Hear from from a Teacher, Resident Economist and Independent Researcher
With the theory of patrimonial fragmentation, an integrated theoretical model is workable.
To formulate the model, we integrate at least four complementary frameworks of patrimonial fragmentation governance; rentier–seeking patrimonial state; post-conflict militarized governance, and ethno-political patronage. To appraise the Global South, we can confidently explain variation in state fragmentation, recurrence of violence, and institutional weakness in post-conflict, resource-dependent states — using South Sudan as a part of the Global South. This integrated model is intended for use in comparative cross-national/subnational quantitative work paired with qualitative process tracing and network analysis. The model is explicitly causal: it links structural preconditions and exogenous shocks to mediating political processes (patronage networks, rent distribution, security-sector fragmentation, ethnic mobilization) that produce observable outcomes such as fragmentation, conflict, and low institutional capacity.
To unravel the nuance, the following hypotheses may ascertain the theoretical frameworks:
•H1: The greater the dependence on personalized patrimonial networks, the higher the likelihood of political fragmentation and violent conflict.
•H2: In rent-seeking states, fluctuations in resource revenues increase the probability of elite fragmentation and political instability.
•H3: Post-conflict power-sharing that rewards armed rebellion contributes to the proliferation of armed factions and governance fragmentation.
•H4: Ethnically skewed patronage distribution increases the likelihood of inter-group conflict and elite defection.
Therefore, I call on other thinkers to challenge me on this front, or else once should declare explicitly that he/she has failed to reject/accept the formulated hypotheses.
Kind regards.
Yours at home.
The Bank and the Backyard
In South Sudan, the story of money does not end in vaults or ledgers. It begins in the open fields, beneath the burning sun, where a man counts his cows, and a woman measures her harvest. To them, wealth is not paper folded in envelopes or digits on a screen — it is land that grows in value, livestock that multiplies, and goods that can be sold when hunger strikes.
The bank, tall and polished, stands in town like a stranger. Its glass doors shine, but few dare to walk in. The obvious question being asked is “What will it give me?” “My money sleeps there and wakes up the same.” For many, a savings account is a silent room where their hard-earned coins lie idle. So instead, they buy a piece of land — something that breathes, something that waits for rain. Or they trade cattle, each of which is a living investment that grows, reproduces, and walks on four hooves of hope.
There is another reason, quiet but deep — trust. The people remember days when systems broke, when money lost its name and promises faded. A goat, however, does not vanish overnight. A plot of land cannot be erased by a banker’s pen. These are assets that can be seen, touched, and passed to one’s children.
Yet, somewhere beyond the dust and distance, the banks still hold their purpose. They record, they protect, they plan. They could offer a bridge between the old and the new — if only they listened. If only they reached beyond the towns and spoke in the language of the people, promising not just safety but growth, not just storage but partnership.
Perhaps one day, the man who keeps his money beneath his mat will trust a vault. Perhaps the woman who saves her profits in grain will open an account. But until then, the economy will keep its heartbeat in the markets, in the pastures, in the patient hands of a people who understand that value is not only counted — it is lived.
Greetings from a Resident Economist.
Dual Family Labor: A Policy-Oriented Critique
Introduction
Dual family labor, where both partners or multiple members of a household engage in paid employment, has become a defining feature of modern economies. This arrangement is often viewed as a sign of progress, maximizing human capital and boosting economic growth. Yet when examined through economic theory, it reveals deep contradictions. While dual family labor increases household income, stabilizes consumption, and contributes to national productivity, it also imposes significant costs in the form of childcare expenses, time scarcity, and growing inequality. A critical analysis shows that dual family labor is not merely a private household decision but a structural issue requiring policy intervention.
Theoretical Framework
Becker’s household production model provides a foundation for understanding how households allocate time between market and nonmarket production. Under dual family labor, households shift more time into market work, raising income but reducing unpaid labor such as childcare and eldercare. Opportunity cost theory further illustrates how the decision to enter the labor force must weigh wages against the foregone value of household production. At the macroeconomic level, Piketty’s theories of capital and inequality highlight how dual-earner households, especially in higher-income brackets, consolidate wealth and advantages, widening the gap between classes. These frameworks reveal that the costs and benefits of dual family labor are unevenly distributed and conditioned by economic structures.
Problematizing Dual Family Labor
From a microeconomic perspective, dual family labor often imposes new burdens on households. The outsourcing of childcare, eldercare, and domestic services creates significant financial pressure, particularly for low- and middle-income families whose net income gains may be slim. The high opportunity costs of paid work—especially for secondary earners in contexts where childcare is expensive or taxation penalizes dual incomes—further complicate household decisions. Beyond finances, dual family labor can generate stress, fatigue, and the “second shift,” where unpaid care responsibilities disproportionately fall on women despite their full participation in the labor market.
At the macroeconomic level, the expansion of labor force participation undoubtedly boosts GDP and strengthens tax revenues, yet these gains mask the reproduction of inequality. Dual high-income households benefit from two strong wage streams and compound wealth accumulation through investments, while single-earner or low-income households cannot compete. Rather than leveling economic opportunities, dual family labor risks deepening existing class divides and entrenching disadvantage.
Policy Implications
Because dual family labor both advances and problematizes economic outcomes, policy intervention is essential to rebalance its effects. Affordable childcare and subsidized early education can lower the opportunity cost of labor force participation, as demonstrated in Scandinavian welfare states. Reforming tax systems to treat earners individually rather than jointly reduces disincentives for secondary earners, while earned income credits support low-wage families.
Addressing inequality requires policies beyond labor market participation alone. Progressive taxation, wage compression strategies, and universal access to social services are necessary to prevent dual high-income households from disproportionately benefitting. At the same time, policies promoting gender equality in care responsibilities—such as paternity leave, flexible work arrangements, and stronger labor protections—can mitigate the inefficiencies of the second shift and improve household well-being.
Conclusion
Dual family labor is neither an unqualified economic success nor a purely problematic development. Theories of household production, opportunity cost, and inequality reveal both its efficiencies and its burdens. Left unsupported, dual family labor risks exhausting households, narrowing net wage gains, and deepening structural inequality. With appropriate policies, however, it can maximize human capital, strengthen macroeconomic growth, and reduce risk for families. The challenge is not whether dual family labor should exist—it already does—but how governments design systems to balance its benefits and mitigate its contradictions.
I am thinking about the Phillips curve as an economic model.
This economic model portrays an inverse nexus between unemployment and labor wages. The idea behind the Phillips curve is that as unemployment rises, wages decrease proportionately. Conversely, the Phillips curve shows that when unemployment decreases, wages increase on the other hand.
This relationship is rooted on the idea that when unemployment is low, workers have more bargaining power, leading to higher wages and, subsequently, higher prices (inflation) as businesses pass on increased labor costs.
Click here to claim your Sponsored Listing.